ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Lung Ultrasound in Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Diagnostic Tool, Prognostic Marker or Monitoring Strategy?
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains one of the leading chronic respiratory complications of extreme prematurity despite major advances in neonatal intensive care. Current diagnostic definitions are primarily based on respiratory support requirements and provide limited information on the biological heterogeneity and longitudinal evolution of lung injury. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is progressively reshaping the clinical approach to BPD by enabling radiation-free, bedside, and repeatable assessment of peripheral lung abnormalities throughout the neonatal course. This narrative review examines the current role of LUS in BPD, integrating its pathophysiological basis with the available evidence and distinguishing explicitly between its diagnostic, prognostic, monitoring, and treatment-guiding applications, which are supported by markedly different levels of evidence. We discuss how LUS findings reflect the major components of BPD pathophysiology, compare LUS with conventional imaging modalities, and summarize the scanning protocols, semiquantitative scoring systems, examination schedules, and patient populations that have been evaluated to date. We also review the emerging contribution of artificial intelligence to automated image analysis, standardized image acquisition, and personalized risk prediction. Most of the available evidence is prognostic rather than diagnostic: early LUS scores predict BPD subsequently defined at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, whereas LUS has not been validated as a diagnostic test for established BPD, and reported cutoffs remain study- and protocol-specific rather than universally applicable. Randomized evidence is confined to LUS-guided surfactant administration, where the demonstrated benefits concern the timing of treatment and the need for invasive ventilation; no trial has yet shown that LUS-guided management reduces the incidence of BPD. Current evidence supports LUS as a complementary imaging modality that extends beyond the assessment of acute neonatal respiratory disease and enables longitudinal bedside monitoring of peripheral lung aeration. Although further multicenter prospective studies are required to harmonize protocols and validate LUS-guided management strategies, the integration of standardized LUS assessment with emerging artificial intelligence technologies has the potential to establish LUS as a key component of precision respiratory care for infants at risk of BPD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.